Conclusions: Liberal Norms and the Role of Regional Organisations

  • Avery PooleEmail author
Part of the The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy book series (PSTCD)


What is the role of regional organisations in advancing ideas about the political and social conditions in their member states? This book has explored this fundamental question, with particular attention to the representations made by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This chapter draws together the findings of the book and considers the implications of its key argument—that member states representatives are motivated by their perceptions of external regional legitimacy (ERL) to make particular normative statements about the importance of democracy and human rights. While these statements are significant given the signalling of intentions which depart from traditional ASEAN norms, they lack resonance for the majority of Southeast Asian peoples. Thus, important questions arise about whether ASEAN matters, and to whom.


ASEAN Regional organisations Democracy Human rights Rhetoric 


  1. Al Jazeera. 2018. “UN: Myanmar Should Be Investigated for Crimes Against Rohingya.” March 9, 2018.
  2. ASEAN. 2007a. “ASEAN Leaders Sign ASEAN Charter.” Singapore, November 20, 2007.
  3. ASEAN. 2007b. Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Singapore, November 20, 2007.
  4. ASEAN. 2013. “Surveys on ASEAN Community Building Effort 2012.” Jakarta, February 2013.
  5. ASEAN. 2018. “Chairman’s Statement of the 33rd ASEAN Summit.” Singapore, November 13, 2018.
  6. Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2007. International Institutions and Socialization in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, Mathew D. 2014. “States of Compliance? Global Human Rights Treaties and ASEAN Member States.” Journal of Human Rights 13, no. 4: 414–433.Google Scholar
  8. Dosch, Jörn. 2008. “Sovereignty Rules: Human Security, Civil Society, and the Limits of Liberal Reform.” In Hard Choices: Security, Democracy and Regionalism in Southeast Asia, edited by Donald K. Emmerson, 59–90. Stanford, CA: Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.Google Scholar
  9. FORUM-ASIA. 2017. “Briefing Paper for the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR): Update on the Mass Displacement of People from Rakhine State.” September 11, 2017.
  10. Gerard, Kelly. 2015. “Explaining ASEAN’s Engagement of Civil Society in Policy-Making: Smoke and Mirrors.” Globalizations 12, no. 3: 365–382.Google Scholar
  11. Grieco, Joseph M. 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42, no. 3 (Summer): 485–507.Google Scholar
  12. He, Kai. 2006. “Does ASEAN Matter? International Relations Theories, Institutional Realism, and ASEAN.” Asian Security 2, no. 3: 189–214.Google Scholar
  13. Hill, Hal, and Jayant Menon. 2014. “ASEAN Commercial Policy: A Rare Case of Outward-Looking Regional Integration.” Asian Development Bank Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration 144 (November).
  14. Human Rights Watch. 2018. “Indonesia Events of 2018”.
  15. Keohane, Robert O. 1988. “International Institutions—Two Approaches.” International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (December): 379–396.Google Scholar
  16. Manea, Maria-Gabriela. 2015. “The Claims of the ASEAN to Human Rights and Democracy: What Role for Regional Civil Society?” ASIEN 136 (July): 73–97.Google Scholar
  17. Martin, Lisa L., and Beth A. Simmons. 1998. “Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (Autumn): 729–757.Google Scholar
  18. Mearsheimer, John J. 1994. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19, no. 3 (December): 5–49.Google Scholar
  19. Mohamad, Maznah. 2002. “Towards a Human Rights Regime in Southeast Asia: Charting the Course of State Commitment.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 24, no. 2 (August): 230–251.Google Scholar
  20. Mounk, Yascha. 2018. “How Populist Uprisings Could Bring Down Liberal Democracy.” The Guardian, May 4, 2018.
  21. Narine, Shaun. 2012. “Human Rights Norms and the Evolution of ASEAN: Moving Without Moving in a Changing Regional Environment.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 34, no. 3 (December): 365–388.Google Scholar
  22. Natalegawa, Marty. 2018. Does ASEAN Matter? A View from Within. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Reus-Smit, Christian. 2009. “Constructivism.” In Theories of International Relations, edited by Scott Burchill, 212–236. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Roberts, Christopher. 2007. “Affinity and Trust in Southeast Asia: A Regional Survey.” In People’s ASEAN and Government’s ASEAN, edited by Hiro Katsumata and See Seng Tan, 84–92. RSIS Monograph No. 11. Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.Google Scholar
  25. Sony, Ouch. 2018. “Cambodia Does Not Need International Recognition for Upcoming Elections: PM.” Channel News Asia, January 19, 2018.
  26. Thomas, Daniel C. 2001. The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human Rights, and the Demise of Communism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Thompson, Mark R. 2015. “Dead Idea (Still) Walking: The Legacy of the ‘Asian Democracy’ and ‘Asian Values’ Debate.” In Routledge Handbook of Southeast Asian Democratization, edited by William Case, 24–37. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)CarltonAustralia

Personalised recommendations